Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Terri Schiavo: what's the big deal?

JunkYardBlog gives it to InstaPundit with both barrels over his stance on Terri Schiavo. All but calls Glenn an antichrist. I don't think this helps Terri, or anyone. I do understand the frustration though.

Glenn says, "But I've tried to keep my head, even as those around me are, all too often, losing theirs."

I saw a poster once that said, "If you can keep your head when all those around you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't understand the situation." While it would be presumption of the first order for me to say that Professor Reynolds doesn't understand the legalities involved, I do wonder whether he realizes what the issue is about for those opposed to starving Terri, and why it matters so much. His concern for fedralism is understandable (although sometimes I wonder if federalism is dead and gone) and his attempt to remain reasonable and hear both sides is commendable. But there are those of us who are more troubled by the idea of judges decreeing death based on quality of life arguments, unsupported assertions about what someone wanted, and judicial usurping of the physician's role in diagnosing medical conditions. Simply put, if we start with Terri, where do we end? If principles dictate putting her to death based on special pleading, then the same principles surely dictate the deaths of others also.

I initially avoided posting about Terri because I didn't think I could do so calmly. But some things we should not be calm about, and judge-decreed murder is one of them. Abortion has indeed led to voluntary euthanasia, and now we're seeing the start of euthanasia that is merely asserted to be voluntary. The next step, as we see in Holland (see last post) is euthanasia with no pretense that the victim desired it.

JunkYardBlog is wrong in its nastiness toward Glenn, but right in its outrage at what is happening. Glenn is right in his concern for the rule of law, but I believe that on this one his neutrality is morally and historically wrong.